Rollin’ on the river

The bike path down around Fountain.
The bike path down around Fountain.

Nice day. I abdicated all professional duties and rode the creekside trail south until it dead-ended at someone’s pasture, just east of the Fort Carson exit off Interstate 25. It made for a rolling, 36-mile round trip from the DogHaus. Headwind out, tailwind back. Doesn’t get any better than that.

By the way, in case I haven’t mentioned it, my Nobilette cyclo-cross bike rocks. Sucker flat disappeared under me as I was riding it today. I felt as though I’d copped a ride on Aladdin’s magic carpet.

Herself and I had a couple buddies over for snacks and wine afterward and as usual we agreed that the body politic is afflicted with boils in dire need of lancing. But none of us has health care that’s worth a shit, and we can’t afford to catch anything, so we’ll leave the doctoring to someone else.

Hey, look, a shiny object! Is that iPhone 4.0 or Steve Jobs’ wiener in my ear?

A sickening health-care bill?

I forgot to add AlterNet to my bookmarks when I shifted operations to the new iMac, and so only stumbled across this post today. It’s a Dec. 21 transcript of a “Bill Moyers Journal” show featuring Rolling Stone‘s Matt Taibbi and The American Prospect‘s Robert Kuttner discussing health-care reform and President Obama’s role in same.

Both Taibbi and Kuttner are deeply critical of Obama’s performance in the passage of what Kuttner calls “a very feeble bill.” Yet Kuttner would vote for it, if only to bitch-slap the GOP and pray that the win helps the prez grow a pair. Taibbi would not. And Kuttner warns that Obama had better start acting like the champion of the people against the special interests if he wants to catch the social-movement tsunami he sees on the horizon:

“One way or another, there is going to be a social movement. Because so many people are hurting, and so many people are feeling correctly that Wall Street is getting too much and Main Street is getting too little. And if it’s not a progressive social movement that articulates the frustration and the reform program, you know that the right wing is going to do it. And that, I think, is what ought to be scaring us silly.”

• Extra Credit Reading: Kevin Drum and Paul Krugman beg to differ.

Pass the bill, change the rules

Over at The New York Times, Paul Krugman is saying, “Pass the health-care bill awready, jeez.” But with more elegance, of course. Like Kevin Drum, he says the measure is flawed, but better than nothing, which is what history shows we will have for the better part of quite some time if this latest attempt at reform goes down in flames:

“Whereas flawed social insurance programs have tended to get better over time, the story of health reform suggests that rejecting an imperfect deal in the hope of eventually getting something better is a recipe for getting nothing at all.”

I’m not nearly as smart as Krugman — you may not be, either — but it’s clear to even a dummy like me that our present system is unsustainable. Health insurance constitutes the second biggest bill we pay here at the DogHaus, right behind the mortgage, and we’re just two people who are reasonably healthy when not falling off our bikes. And nearly every experience we’ve had with an insurer has involved a monumental clusterfuck of some kind, including botched billings, unintelligible paperwork and exorbitant premium increases that make a mob loan shark seem positively angelic by comparison.

Some of this has to do with the employer-based structure of U.S. health insurance. I don’t have an employer, so I can either cut a deal on my own — the last time we did that it involved a monumental deductible and paying full retail at the sawbones and pharmacy — or piggyback on Herself’s policy, which at various times and places has looked not unlike robbery with violence, with one plan for single people and another for families, but no mid-priced offering for a man and wife unencumbered by offspring.

Drum concedes that the Senate plan kowtows to powerful interests like the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, adding, “But that’s why they’re called powerful interests: because they can kill your legislative priorities if you don’t assuage them.” In return, he continues:

“(T)he Senate bill brings down insurance rates, expands Medicaid, offers the prospect of moderately priced insurance to tens of millions of the uninsured, forces insurers to take you on even if you have a chronic pre-existing condition, mandates minimum levels of coverage, and takes several small but important steps toward reducing the future growth of healthcare costs.  That’s an enormous advance for the progressive agenda.”

We’ll see. Or maybe not. It’s far from a done deal. But if the sausage gets made, Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson should be next to go into the grinder. And let’s toss the filibuster in there with the sonsabitches. Krugman again:

“The filibuster, and the need for 60 votes to end debate, aren’t in the Constitution. They’re a Senate tradition, and that same tradition said that the threat of filibusters should be used sparingly. Well, Republicans have already trashed the second part of the tradition: look at a list of cloture motions over time, and you’ll see that since the G.O.P. lost control of Congress it has pursued obstructionism on a literally unprecedented scale. So it’s time to revise the rules.”

Can the Donks play that kind of hardball? Stay tuned.